linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 02/13] pci, acpi: Provide generic way to assign bus domain number.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 30 Apr 2016 00:50:11 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	catalin.marinas@....com, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, will.deacon@....com,
	okaya@...eaurora.org, wangyijing@...wei.com,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
	ddaney@...iumnetworks.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com,
	Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, msalter@...hat.com,
	Liviu.Dudau@....com, mw@...ihalf.com, jcm@...hat.com,
	jchandra@...adcom.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hanjun.guo@...aro.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com,
	jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 02/13] pci, acpi: Provide generic way to assign bus domain number.

On Thursday 28 April 2016 17:34:10 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 28 April 2016 10:12:12 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > Right, we don't have a good mechanism for passing more info into
> > pci_create_root_bus().  Maybe the caller could fill in a struct so we
> > have a chance to extend it without having to change all the existing
> > callers.
> > 
> > I wonder if there's a design pattern we can copy, e.g., would
> > something like the scsi_host_alloc(), scsi_add_host(),
> > scsi_scan_host() model work here?
> 
> Yes, I think that is a good idea in general. Especially
> now that we have separate the ARM code from pci_common_init_dev
> and pci_sys_data, that can help with cleanups in the other drivers
> as well.
> 
> I see two common variations in other subsystems: some use a
> special alloc() function that you pass the size of the private
> data into, while others just expect you to embed a structure
> inside of the driver specific one allocate that separately to
> have the generic registration function fill out the common fields.
> 
> I have a slight preference for the second, but they are really
> the same thing basically.

I've tried this out now, and will follow up with a separate patch
series. Overall, I think it works out well, though I haven't gotten
to the point of actually saving code yet. I've converted two
drivers for demonstration.

	Arnd